Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ucla-cs!cc1
From: cc1@locus.ucla.edu (Michael Gersten)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Pattern Matching & documentation
Message-ID: <3313@curly.ucla-cs.UCLA.EDU>
Date: Fri, 5-Dec-86 19:58:23 EST
Article-I.D.: curly.3313
Posted: Fri Dec  5 19:58:23 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Dec-86 21:48:27 EST
References: <954@blia.BLI.COM> <1731@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <3237@curly.ucla-cs.UCLA.EDU>
Organization: Ucla Computer Club (disclaimer)
Lines: 58
In-Reply-To: <1805@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>


In article <1805@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> you write:
>In article <3237@curly.ucla-cs.UCLA.EDU> ucla-cs!cepu!ucla-an!remsit!stb!michael@ihnp4.UUCP cc1@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU (Michael Gersten) writes:
>>>For those who don't think per-argument pattern matching is a win,
>>>consider "finger *" and "finger *@*.berkeley.edu". 
>>
>>Ok. Whats wrong with finger \*@\*.berkeley.edu or
>>finger "*@*.berkeley.edu" or
>>set noglob
>>finger *@*.berkeley.edu
>>unset noglob
>>?
>
>Because none of those do what the command ought to do - run a finger
>on all the *users* in the apropriate domain. All you've done is turned
>off the pattern matching, not made it work reasonably well. Worse yet,
>part of your turning of methods won't work if finger happens to be a
>shell script. Since it's not uncommon to have shell scripts that
>invoke other shell scripts, this can get to be a major pain in the
>ass. Why should I have to know how many levels of shell script are
>involved in a command when I run it?

What I did was just what you did--namely, pass a *@* to the finger
program. If it doesn't know how to handle this, is that my fault?

As for shell scripts, I'm not sure I understand the question/complaint.

[my comments about the benefit of pattern matching, and using join as
an example]

>I certainly hope not. It would be better if they fixed the library
>mechanism (the linkers, maybe?) so you could invoke routines in shared
>libraries without doing an explicit "openlibrary", then providing the
...
>Oh, yeah - many of the supplied BCPL commands work quite well with

ONLY 4 or 5 BCPL commands work with patterns; list uses a BRAIN-DAMAGED
form of matching that can only check the current directory.

I feel that the CLI should properly handle *:file (ops, #?:file) things.
In fact, I tried doing a DIR #?:, and got a requester for a disk.

So, the problem isn't that it should be done, the question is who
should do it. As a user, I don't care AS LONG AS ALL COMMANDS DO IT.
As a programmer I prefer to have it done for me. As a pesimistic
observer, I note that many people won't do it unless it is as simple
as 'PatternMatch (argc, argv)'; even then, some still won't.

Finally, I *HATE* programs that assume that their first filename is
for input, and the second one is output. TYPE is that way. I lost
several files that way (do NOT say read the manual; I did, and that
was NOT clearly pointed out)

Lastly, what do font names/process names have to do with file expansion?

			Michael Gersten

      Views expressed here may not be those of the Computer Club, UCLA, or
  anyone in their left OR right mind.  And that's the name o' that tune.